  |
|
News: SearchKing Court Findings Confused?
|
|  |
|
| Posted by chris on Monday, January 27 @ 09:00:00 EST
|
|
|
|
|
 Well, somebody kindly posted a copy of the court findings here. I confess to only skim-reading it, because that was all it took to make me start giggling.
It would appear that the ruling the PageRank is an opinion is based on a misunderstood and confused interpretation of PageRank. Naturally, it is up to the parties involved to explain themselves properly but it the following statements might highlight what I'm talking about:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Page 3 - The PageRank is derived from a combination of factors that include text-matching and the number of links from other web pages that point to the PageRanked web site. The higher the PageRank, the more closely the website in question supposedly matches the search query, and vice versa. The highest possible PageRank is 10, and the lowest is 1.
Which, of course, it cannot be. PageRank shows on your toolbar whether or not you type in a search query. When talking about PageRank(TM) here, the court appears to have been confused with a page's actual rank. PageRank is independent of textual relevancy, which is why it can be pre-calculated by Google.
The court goes on to say it's measured on a scale of 10 to 1. One would have to ask is that for each possible match of textual relevancy, for each possible query? It would appear the wrong end of the stick has been truly gotten!
Further down they go on to say:
Page 9 - The court concludes the Jefferson County is analogous to the case at bar. Like the review in Jefferson County, a PageRank is an opinion - an opinion of the significance of a particular website as it corresponds to a search query.
Again stating PageRank (note, not Page Rank which could imply a page's position in the SERPs), so once again the court demonstrates confusion. The court appears to have managed to find the two cases analogous, even though it's understanding of PageRank is flawed. If the court cannot describe PageRank correctly, does not have a true understanding of PageRank but infact confuses it with something that has a textual relevancy to a search query, it becomes distinctly worrying that they should be able to draw any analogies to prior cases.
It really is about time they started employing techies as judges :-) |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
|
|
|
|
